R (on the Application of A) v (1) South Yorkshire Police and (2) Crown Prosecution Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MAY,Mr Justice Gray,MR JUSTICE GRAY |
| Judgment Date | 09 May 2007 |
| Neutral Citation | [2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin) |
| Docket Number | CO/263/2007 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Date | 09 May 2007 |
[2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
DIVISIONAL COURT
Lord Justice May
Mr Justice Gray
CO/263/2007
MR STEPHEN CRAGG (instructed by Messrs Howells, Sheffield S3) appeared on behalf of the Claimant
MR RICHARD PERKS (instructed by South Yorkshire Police) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant
MR STEPHEN WOOD (instructed by Crown Prosecution Service, Rotherham CJU, S60 1RX) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant
( As approved by the Court )
Mr Justice Gray will give the first judgment.
MR JUSTICE GRAYThe issue
This is an application by six minors, who were at the material time variously aged between 14 and 16 and who sue by their next friends, for permission to apply for judicial review with the substantive hearing to follow immediately if permission is granted. An order has been made that the identities of the claimants are not to be published. We will refer to them by their initials.
The claimants challenge, firstly, the initial decision of an officer in the force of the first defendant, the Chief Constable of South Yorkshire, made on 16th June 2006 to charge the claimants with criminal offences rather than to give them final warnings, and the subsequent decision not to reconsider the approach which was initially taken. Secondly, the claimants challenge the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service, the second defendant, made on 20th October 2006 as part of its continuous duty of review, to continue with the prosecution of the claimants. The criminal proceedings in the Youth Court have been adjourned pending the outcome of the present application.
The claimants' case is that both defendants failed to make their respective decisions in accordance with the Final Warning Scheme ("the Scheme"), which was issued by the Home Office and the Youth Justice Board pursuant to the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 ("CADA 1998"). In particular it is alleged against the defendants that they failed to follow the additional guidance given in Home Office Circular 14/2006 ("Circular 14/2006"). Annex D to Circular 14/2006 introduced the Gravity Factor System ("the System") which was drawn up by the Association of Chief Police Officers. The System sets out gravity scores, ranging from 1 to 4, for most criminal offences in the calendar. The claimants' case is that a correct application of the Scheme and the System would have resulted in their receiving final warnings rather than with their being charged with criminal offences.
The claimants further contend that the second defendant failed to make decisions in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors ("the Code") and the accompanying legal guidance.
The claimants seek orders that their cases be reconsidered in accordance with the Scheme and the Code respectively.
The defendants now accept that the offences allegedly committed by the claimants, namely criminal damage in the case of each of them, were erroneously given gravity scores of 4 instead of 3, which was the correct score in the circumstances of the case. Absent exceptional circumstances, score 3 offences normally attract a reprimand or final warning. However, both defendants contend that the decisions to charge the defendants and to continue with their prosecutions were made lawfully, principally because of the serious nature of the offending.
Permission granted
Having heard full argument from all three counsel in the case, we have decided that this is a case where permission should be granted in respect of the applications against both defendants. We have treated the argument which we have heard as being the substantive hearing of the applications.
Factual background
The background facts are relatively straightforward and we can take them quite shortly.
On 6th March 2006 youths including the claimants damaged the roof and the seats of a school bus taking them home from Pope Pius X school in Rotherham. Some knives were removed from the school kitchen by one of the youths, namely GS. Mr Stephen Cragg on behalf of the claimants points out that It does not appear that the other children were aware that he had the knives. It may be that he is not correct in that assertion. As will appear the incident was caught on CCTV.
When the bus company contacted the school eight pupils, including the six claimants, were suspending from the school for a period of time as punishment. The damage caused was valued at £5,772 odd including VAT, but this includes the cost of the bus having to be withdrawn from service (said to be ten days at £250 a day, making £2,500 in all). No action was taken in respect of this offending by the first defendant until the start of May 2006.
Those are the bare bones of the incident giving rise to the criminal charges. We have been shown still photographs taken by the CCTV cameras which provide a graphic illustration of what was going on on the top deck of the bus on the day in question. Mr Stephen Wood, on behalf of the second defendant, has taken us through those photographs. They show not only the damage which was being inflicted to the seating and the roof of the bus, but also that knives were being wielded and used to threaten individuals on the top deck. One photograph even shows a knife being thrown across the top floor of the bus. It is accepted by Mr Cragg that this was, on any view, as he put it, bad criminal behaviour.
The facts relating to the individual claimants are broadly similar. They are helpfully recited by Mr Cragg in his skeleton argument. He there refers to assurances or representations said to have been made to the individual claimants, or to their parents or carers by the arresting officer, Police Constable Foster. For reasons which will appear in due course, it is not necessary to go through those facts in any great detail.
However, it is right that we should record briefly the fact that the claimant JA admitted to stabbing a seat once with a knife provided to him by another pupil, which had been taken from the school kitchen, and to causing damage as a result. So far as claimant WB is concerned, he said in interview that he had one of the knives, which was like a chopping knife. He stated that JA, another claimant, passed him the knife and that he, WB, stabbed a seat two or three times making a little tear, as he put it, and then left the knife on the seat. Claimant JC admitted to jumping on bus seats and unsuccessfully trying to bend the top of the seat. He said that he did not have hold of a knife. Claimant LB, the only female claimant, admitted to having hold of a pallet knife which was passed to her by one of the other claimants. She also admitted putting the knife into a cut which had been made in the seat in front of her. Claimant KW admitted to using a spatula knife and to stabbing the ceiling with the spatula knife two or three times and to hitting the back of the seat with the other end of the knife. Finally, claimant GS admitted to being the person who had taken three knives on to the school bus, these being two small chopping knives and a pallet knife. He admitted to having used the knives to stab the ceiling and the seats and to ripping seats.
The claimants were interviewed on 10th, 28th and 29th May 2006, that is over two months after the bus had been damaged. Thereafter, all the claimants were released on police bail.
The six claimants attended the police station on 18th and 19th June 2006. All of them were charged with criminal damage to the value of £5,770 odd, that being the totality of the damage done to the bus. Forms headed "Notification of Reprimand, Final Warning, Summons, Charge" were completed in the case of each claimant. Those forms are included in the papers before us. The circumstances of the offences are in each form described as having been as follows:
"Bus collected pupils from school to take them home. The pupil has been in possession of the knives. These have been handed round the group and used to stab the seats and ceiling. This has caused tears and rips to the seats and marks on the ceiling. The seats have also been bent back. It was all intentional. The school were made aware and the pupils dealt with by suspension."
There are comments made in the forms about the attitude of the young offenders, who are in each case said to have been co-operative. The attitude of the parent/guardian of claimant JA, to take one example, is described as being "very pro police and co-operative". In a later section of the form, the gravity score allocated in the case of each claimant is 4. Against the rubric "Relevant Aggravating/Mitigating Factors" one finds in the case of each of the claimants the following words: "value of damage, political situation re knives at moment, it was in public place, intentional." A reference to "group action" appears to have been added by a different hand.
Bail was continued to the initial court date which was set for 26th June 2006. On that date Ms Sarah Brown of Howells, a firm of solicitors, was at the Youth Court as duty solicitor. The claimant JA was accompanied to court by his parents but was legally unrepresented. Ms Brown accepted instructions to act on his behalf. According to Ms Brown's evidence, the parents told her that PC Foster had told JA that he would be given a warning and that he did not need a solicitor at his interview or at court. According to the evidence of their respective parents or carers,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fritz Pinnock v Financial Investigations Division
...upon us after the close of arguments, is R (on the Application of A) v South Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWHC 1261(Admin). This was a decision of a two man Divisional Court sitting to consider an application for leave to apply for judicial review. The issue co......
-
D v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
...to the conclusion that the decision of Sergeant Page cannot survive scrutiny in this court. 32 In R (A) v South Yorkshire Police [2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin), (2007) 171 JP 465, the decision of the Crown Prosecution Service was found to be a sustainable one. As May LJ said at paragraph 103: “A......
-
O (R) v DPP
...note, but the court in Pepuchi was expressing itself in general terms. 13 It is also to be noted that in A v South Yorkshire Police [2007] EWHC (Admin) 1261 Gray J, giving the first judgment, said this: “The approach which I think it right that the court should adopt in the circumstances of......
-
Diversion from Prosecution for Young People in England and Wales − Reconsidering the Mandatory Admission Criteria
...v Chief Constable of Police Ex p. L and R v DPP Ex p. B [1993] 1 ALL E.R. 756; R. (on the application of A) v South Yorkshire Police [2007] EWHC 1261 Admin; D v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2008] EWHC 442 (Admin); Stone, 2007).Given that law and policy provides that an admissio......
-
Raised Expectations, Flawed Discretion and Abuse of Process in Diversion and Provision of Accommodation
...(Stone, 2007), prompted by the judgement in R (on the application of A.) v South Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin), (2007) 171 JP 465, addressed the scope to challenge the police and/or the CPS in circumstances where a young person considers there w......
-
Warn or Prosecute? Policy, the Exercise of Discretion and Judicial Review
...is thus instructive to heed the judgment in R (on the applicationof A.) v South Yorkshire Police and the Crown Prosecution Service [2007] EWHC 1261 (Admin),decided in May 2007. In what circumstances can the police and Crown ProsecutionService (CPS) be challenged where a young person is char......